Grace, Love and Justice in Tolstoy’s The Forged Coupon

Christianity uniquely believes in the power of love and forgiveness to free captive sinners from the bonds of sin and death. Consequently the law (quid-pro-quo justice, conditional love, and punishment) does not fix the problem, but only makes matters worse. But is not the law necessary sometimes? Aren’t there times when justice must be served? For Tolstoy, the answer must be an unequivocal NO! In “The Forged Coupon” – the last novella he ever wrote- Tolstoy challenges the basic assumption that there is a realm of God’s creation where the power of grace is excluded and justice, punishment, and law are needed to restrain evil in the world. Grace must “work” in every situation or else there is no real hope for the future of the world.

The first half of the book begins with a father who refuses to grant his son an advance on his allowance to pay a debt. The son forges a coupon (interest bond) to pay his friend what he owes. This simple indiscretion sets in motion a series of escalating evils that seems to have no end. Those who are wronged seek revenge. Those who steal are imprisoned. Those who are imprisoned become murders. Family men become vagabonds and merchants become crooks. Each character acts in accordance with what’s best for them while each wrongdoing is met with the just penalty for that transgression. In all cases, the use of justice hinders the miserable offender and makes matters worse. This is a picture of the world without love. A place where evil escalates without abatement to the ruin of everyone involved.

In the midst of this world that is falling apart at the seams Tolstoy introduces Mariya Semenovna, an older widow with a small yearly pension. She begins what amounts to a reversal of the evil and misfortune of the first half of the book. Mariya lives a simple life of love for her neighbors. She gives jobs to the lame, food to the poor and shelter to the sojourner. Her tireless service is never repaid with either gratitude or compensation, yet she continues to live solely for the benefit of others. When asked why she lives so selflessly for others, Mariya simply pointed to the Gospel of Matthew and the Sermon on the Mount. But the climax of the book happens when Mariya meets the serial killer Stepan. He steals from her and she does not fight him, but submits herself to his trespass. With her last breath, she forgives Stepan and pities how wretched he had become. After the murder, Stepan becomes overwhelmingly sleepy and cannot fully flee from the crime scene. On the third day he rises up from the ditch he fell in and immediately confesses to the closest police officer. He has become a shell of his former self. He began to preach the faith of the one he had killed.

The second half of the book is marked by the spread of the teachings of Jesus and the reversal of the evils perpetuated in the first half of the book. God is not distant from the world, but is to be found within the horizontal interactions of individuals, enabling them to love and serve. Stepan becomes an evangelist to his fellow inmates. He readily accepts the punishment of death, but when this act converts the local executioner, the region is unable to carryout capital punishments. A former thief is released from prison and now gives all of what he has to the shop owner who had previously cheated him. When a rich landowner is killed, the Christian wife refuses to press charges and demands the release of the murderer. In the end, the boy who originally forged the coupon reconciled with his unyielding father. In each case the individual is shown grace in the midst of their unworthiness and are told of Jesus’ teaching. Where death had previously conquered, now love is the only remedy.

For Tolstoy, the world is in constant battle between the wages of sin and the greater power of love. The law is not necessary to keep the world from spinning off its axis- its existence is a given. Instead it is the law itself that pushes the world toward destruction. It is the grace of God moving people in love for service of one another that holds destruction at bay. Love works in every instance to eclipse the power of sin. In short, love makes the world go round.

I second The Smiths's question. I read here a lot about The Law vs. The Gospel (or Love), and I often wonder if you're really arguing what you seem to be – that there is no use in this world whatsoever for The Law. I've been struggling with this idea. I can't imagine you truly believe the world, as it is, could function without any law. It seems to me that The Law is necessary in a fallen world where Sin is a given. But here you seem to be saying The Law is part of the problem… that it actually perpetuates the cycle of destruction that's born of sin, and prevents the healing influence of grace. If that is, indeed, what you're saying, then what is the remedy? Abolishing the law doesn't seem to be a viable option. Do you envision a time – in this world, in this dimension – when The Law will be unnecessary? Are you saying that time is now? Help me out here, please!

I have some thoughts on your questions. We will always have the Law this side of Jesus' second coming. We need it actually to understand the Gospel. It is true that God's grace through Jesus' death and resurrection brings about that which the Law cannot, namely righteousness. At the same time, we would have no understanding of our need for God's grace were it not for His perfect Law. That's why we can never separate the Law and the Gospel, but we must always understand the distinction between them.

Also, as far as order in this fallen world goes, it is clear from a purely observational standpoint that God uses law in some way shape or form. This is usually referred to as the 1st use of the Law. When it comes to murderers I think putting them in jail is a safety for the rest of the community. It will not be the thing that converts the murderer him/herself, BUT it will be used by God to convict them to the point where they may understand their need for mercy and cry out for grace. I think of the movie Dead Man Walking.

ANyhow, those are some of my thoughts:) Todd, I'd love to hear what your thoughts are as well.

I would more broadly question whether the law is something that we can "use." A German theologian, Gerhard Ebeling, wrote an article on the Reformation development of the various "uses" of the law and briefly remarked how rarely Luther himself spoke of a human "use" of the law. For me, this indicates that the law is not something that we can properly use for other people. The 1st use of the law masquerades as a proper use, when it is really a means of control and exploitation.

Where I am uneasy about the distinction of the "1st use of the law" is that it can create a realm of human activity where the law produces righteousness and grace is superfluous. It is incompatible to believe that the law produces death and simultaneously affirm that punishment must be given for the criminal's own good. It seems to me instead that the first use of the law does not exist for the benefit of the imprisoned individual, but rather for the protection of others and the maintenance of the worldly status quo.

In "The Forged Coupon," the theif is imprisoned and become a hardened criminal and mass-murder. The punishment given to him only makes him angry and bitter. It's not that Tolstoy simply thinks that the law was unjustly applied. Instead when grace comes on the scene the executioner gives up his trade because he believes it to be contrary to Christianity.

But is not the law necessary sometimes? Aren’t there times when justice must be served? For Tolstoy, the answer must be an unequivocal NO! … Tolstoy challenges the basic assumption that there is a realm of God’s creation where the power of grace is excluded and justice, punishment, and law are needed to restrain evil in the world. Grace must “work” in every situation or else there is no real hope for the future of the world.

So that I can understand you better, could we take a concrete example? NYC has laws that make rape and murder crimes, and police and courts and prisons to enforce those laws.

(1) Are you saying that, if Tolstoy lived in NYC, he would want laws like that abolished?

(2) Do YOU feel that NYC would be a better place if those laws were abolished?

(3) Do you believe that graceful love without punishment or restraint would always cause convicted rapists to never rape again? Do you favor that as a replacement for prison sentences?

1. As far as Tolstoy goes, here is quote from his tract called "Patriotism and Government":

'But,' it is usually asked, 'what will there be instead of Governments?'

There will be nothing. Something that has long been useless, and therefore superfluous and bad, will be abolished. An organ that, being unnecessary, has become harmful, will be abolished.

'But,' people generally say, 'if there is no Government, people will violate and kill each other.'

Why? Why should the abolition of the organization which arose in consequence of violence, and which has been handed down from generation to generation to do violence–why should the abolition of such all organization, now devoid of use, cause people to outrage and kill one another? On the contrary, the presumption is that the abolition of the organ of violence would result in people ceasing to violate and kill one another."

2. I do NOT hold Tolstoy's position. The imprisonment of murders and rapists serves to protect society. It's not that I don't think that civil laws should exist, but that civil laws do not exist for the benefit of the offender and can never produce love.

3.If anything, the american prison system testifies to the impotency of the law to change hearts. While national crime rates are down, the prisons themselves are bursting at the seams with countless repeat offenders. It's certainly worth brain-storming possible alternatives. Long ago, Folsom Prison had the lowest prisoner return rate of any prison in the country. Surprisingly, this "prison" was anything but. While doing time the prisoners were educated and taught a trade! If you treat criminals like criminals, they will always be criminals. But the gospel says that if you treat criminals as beloved people, they cease to be criminals.

tolstoy had a passion for the sermon on the mount. mahatma ghandi learned his methods of passive resistance from reading tolstoi. bernard rustin, dr martin luther king's gay adviser, learned from ghandi. dr king learned from rustin.

So it sounds like you don't actually believe that, if you treat crimals as beloved people, they will cease to become criminals. (Either that, or you think that the gospel does say that but the gospel is untrue.)

It sounds instead that you believe that graceful loving can sometimes birth change, but that you can't count on it to do that. Much of the time it WON'T work, you think; and that is why society needs the protection of dangerous criminals being locked up.

Does that sound right?

If so, I certainly agree with you. I also agree that it is always a great thing to do to experiment with gentler methods in prisons and sentencing to see if certain strategies can reduce recidivism on the whole, can help people learn job skills, and so on. Furthermore I'd say that one of the reasons prisons are bursting at the seams (as you rightly say) has to do with stupid laws: e.g. the War on Drugs.

I also agree that the Law can never change the human heart (this includes command, punishment, rewards, etc.). You're surely right about that. This is the Sermon on the Mount and Paul's teaching as well.

But it sounds like you may be mistakenly infering, from the Law's impotence to make hearts holy, that therefore it must also be impotent at controlling behavior as well. The Law is by no means a perfect method of controlling behavior of course — but it still is largely effective at controlling some kinds of behavior. That's why it's good to have laws against rape and murder and theft and arson and libel (etc.) — along with the panoply of police, courts, and prisons — because when you do, you sharply reduce the frequency of these crimes.

As far as what you quote from Tolstoy (item #1 in your earlier post) it was fascinating! Thanks. It sounds like Tolstoy believed basically what Rousseau held. I.e… People are not born bad in their hearts — rather it is bad SYSTEMS that make them bad. Get rid of the bad and mean SYSTEMS (e.g. all systems of punishment) and people will cease to violate one another.

An interesting question to my mind then is what significance Christ had for Tolstoy. It sounds like Tolstoy had no real need for Christ as a SAVIOR — no need for the atoning blood shed for bound sinners who remain sinners. It sounds instead like Tolstoy must have viewed Jesus as a helpful model or example to lead us the way to making the right societal changes — changes which once made would fix the problem of human sin.

It's certainly true that Tolstoy often operates within the rational/moral understanding of Christianity, though the substitutionary function of Christ isn't totally absent.

It could be said that Mariya is a christ-like figure. Stepan as a character represents the culmination of all the evil in the first half of the book. He is the worst of the worst. Mariya's death at the hands of Stepan serves as an absorption of all this evil. Instead of taking up the sword, the turns the other cheek and forgives. Is this a moral example? Yes, but in the story her death is also the turning point by which evil ends and love begins to flow.

"It sounds instead that you believe that graceful loving can sometimes birth change, but that you can't count on it to do that. Much of the time it WON'T work, you think; and that is why society needs the protection of dangerous criminals being locked up.

Does that sound right?"

almost….

The SAME Will of God, 'fruits of righteousness' are gotten from men in two ways:

(1) Carrot and stick of the law(2) wills conformed to God´s will by faith planted in the new birth.

(1)'works of the law' worked through both the stick AND carrot of the Law, it´s threats, fear of punishment and promises and appeals to ego and self preservation and wellbeing. Man can do ALL ´fruit of righteousness' through the exercise of free will and reason. Except one thing.

The one thing free will cannot do, is enable man to keep the first and second commandment ("love God" and "don´t take his name in vain"): namely to fear, love and trust in God above all things, and to call upon him in every trouble rather than trusting in other things.

Only the Holy Spirit can work this, because we are, by nature enemies of God. Luther´s "small catechism" says something rather odd therefore in the explanation to the 3rd part of the Apostle´s Creed: "I believe that I cannot , by my own reason or strenght, believe in christ, my lord, nor come to him, but the holy spirit…"

in short this says "I believe that I cannot believe!"

which brings us to the second way God, the Holy Spirit works righteousness in men:

(2) The Holy Spirit plants faith in the heart of men. The word for this is "sanctification". Sanctification is nothing more and nothing less than faith God plants in our hearts. Trust in God because of Christ.

The natural result of this is the 'fruit of sanctification' (which is not sanctification!). this is the SAME will of God worked by the law in the form of outward righteousness PLUS faith. This fruit of sanctification/faith happens automatically, spontanenously, without any need for exercise, will-power, "evangelical exhortation (ie LAW)" in the form of "we SHOULD do good works out of gratitude for what Jesus did for us (ie LAW)".

Why is this spontaneous? It is our new ´second nature´ insofar as we are regenerated. it is what a heart conformed to the will of God simply just does. Think of how Jesus kept the law for us. He did not need to exercise 'spiritual discipline'. He just simply did it as true to his nature.

Practical applications:

First, if sanctification= faith, we can not get more of that by spiritual exercises. We get that only by hearing the good news of Jesus Christ.

Secondly, if the "fruit of sanctification" looks and is outwardly identical to the "works of the law" and the only difference is that faith is added, then we can say that the "fruit of sanctification/faith" IS indeed visible. But it is "invisibly visible" in that it outwardly looks identical to "works of the law" and the only difference is an invisible heart difference that has a feeble start of keeping the first table of the law.

Mankind , using his free will, can do ALL outward righteousness. But the free will is still in bondage: it cannot will to fear, love and trust in God above all things.

To the exact contrary, free will can only flee from God, hate him, fear him, and create an awesome and endlessly creative multiplicity of small-g gods to overcome all of those fears.

We cannot "make a decision" for Jesus or chose him. He must turn stones into children of abraham. He has done this to our stony hearts in the waters of Holy Baptism. It is truly a miracle when it happens.

Frank, You have wonderfully defined the vertical relationship between God and Man, and the interrelation between justification and sanctification.

For me, the question is whether there is a correlation or analogy between the vertical God-me relationship and the horizontal You-Me relationship. If it is true that we love God because he loved us first, then can the same must true in the person-to person relationship. This is Tolstoy's larger point. Grace as a horizontal interaction engenders law-abiding love.

IF I understand you right, you are asking: "Is following the Golden Rule contageous"?

My mind ran quickly through the bible passages I could think of, and those all seem to suggest that we can ease someone elses suffering by sharing the burden of their sin with them.. passages like "confess your sins to one another and you will be healed" and st paul's advice to bear one anothers burdens and in ephesians where it seems to suggest that our call to service for our neighbor is precisely at the point where we become aware of the effects of their sinfulness on our own lives.

Then I realized that the best analogy was the one that the Bible is really ALL about: That man Jesus who claimed to be God.

And here is what I understand from his life: He did not come to fix us or make us better. That would be impossible. We need to die. and be born from above. so he came. and he died. and he invites us to die and join our death to his in baptism.

I think this looks alot like mothers and grandmothers loving their sons. some end up doing good and avoiding evil precisely because of that love. Others end up doing no good. they end up in prison. often repeatedly. they are bad bad men. their mothers sometimes even think that is the best possible result. and still love them.

The second case is the more interesting one for me. did it make a 'difference' that their mother's loved them? how so? what do you think Todd?

is Tolstoy thinking that if only we live the sermon on the mount correctly, that this would become contageous and then even civil government would become redundant in maintaining order in society? this is what I understand Tolstoy as saying. The problem with this is that it underestimates original sin.

even for christians, the best metaphor I have heard for the church is "hospice" a place where the terminally ill and dying can go to prepare for death and die with dignity and reduced pain. the hospital metaphor for church is wrong. it implies that the doctor (pastor?) can intravenously inject love or the gospel or gods word and … we get better. that's not it is it? much as that idea does become an idol for me from time to time…. it is wrong.

of course the correlation and more-thn-analogy of our vertical and horozontal relationship is the crucifix as the perfect image for that. everything must pass through that dead Jew hanging, limp, passive, and VICTORIOUS!!!

how relevant is that? what did that seem to accomplish after 2000 years? Jesus did not come to rescue us from the passion of a dying world. he came and did something much more wierd: he came and joined his passion to ours. or rather our passion to his.

like you are strapped into the gas chamber, and the door is suddenly flung open the moment before they flip the switch, and its Jesus! he comes and sits on your lap and says " relax. this needs to happen. I have been through this already. and I will be with you through all of it. " we want rescue. we are tired of ourselves, and we are tired of others. and we want someone to come and fix it all. and Jesus comes as this utterly ordinary, non heroic figure, and then just drops dead to all of those ideas.

Tolstoys vision looks like what alot of churches would like to have happen. in fact liberal churches and fundamentalist evangelical churches are rather identical there. they really are true believers. they believe the church can and should smooth out the wrinkles of the crumpled paper bag of human history. the only difference is what their vision of what that smoothed out world should look like. church history is littered with these attempts isnt it?

Frank,I would agree that Tolstoy undermines original sin. For him it seems that if people simple know about the sermon on the mount, then they will act upon it.

I am hesitant about your characterization of love as a law and a carrot and stick. John frequently characterizes justification and the cross as an act of love (1 John 3:1, 3:16, 4:9-12, 4:15-16). Of course, the "ought" of love is a law, and the presence of love is the fulfillment of the law. Yet God's love at the cross is not perceived by the needy sinner as a law, but as Gospel.

You said: "The only place where the Holy Spirit is required and where free will is utterly useless is in making believers out of unbelievers. Period."

I think you're probably overstating this a bit. The fruit of the Spirit is love/joy/peace/etc. The Gospel is not without effect, but may produce such fruit in faith. This work of the Spirit to move people to love/joy/peace/etc. does not always correspond to rational, conscious knowledge of sin and faith. It can happen spontaneously to me without me even knowing it. In other words, I do not always need to know that god is acting for him to act. This does not mean that we "get better" – we are always on our knees in need of grace.

Your illustration of mother and sons is a great place to start. You asked, does a mother's love make a difference? Absolutely! I would surmise that children of a loving mother are far better off than children of a difficult mother. That difference (being better off) is hard to define across the board. But I know for me that if I went to prison for something, I would be better off if my mother loved me and supported me through it than if she abandoned or condemned me, then I would be more willing to face the consequences of my actions.

TODD:I am hesitant about your characterization of love as a law and a carrot and stick. John frequently characterizes justification and the cross as an act of love (1 John 3:1, 3:16, 4:9-12, 4:15-16).

FRANK:Excellent! Think of the phrase "Will of God" and then "will of God in christ." will of God = law.

Christ IS the fulfillment of the law. christ IS Love. incarnate. love IS the fulfillment of the law.

There are not two Wills of God. Only one. but we can only see this will of God correctly in Christ.

On the other track of what you are saying, I emphasize "carrot" because alot of time this is missing in talking about the Law. The law indeed uses the carrot to do some of it´s most effective work. it is actually why people seek to live by keeping the law.

TODD:Of course, the "ought" of love is a law, and the presence of love is the fulfillment of the law. Yet God's love at the cross is not perceived by the needy sinner as a law, but as Gospel.

Now, insofar as you are regenerate, you welcome the law. even the part where it is "mortifying your flesh" ie even where it is killing you. and you now accept suffering in a way that makes you forsake other help and call upon God´s name in all your troubles. Excellent again Todd. thanks!

FRANK: "The only place where the Holy Spirit is required and where free will is utterly useless is in making believers out of unbelievers. Period."

TODD: I think you're probably overstating this a bit.

The fruit of the Spirit is love/joy/peace/etc.

FRANK: Absolutely. The "fruit of sanctification." Let me return to this at the end because this is really key here. and what makes things feel so confusing.

TODD: The Gospel is not without effect, but may produce such fruit in faith.

FRANK: Too cautious dear brother. I think we can say safely from scripture that faith/sanctification will always produce fruit.

TODD: The work of the Spirit to move people to love/joy/peace/etc. does not always correspond to rational, conscious knowledge of sin and faith. It can happen spontaneously to me without me even knowing it.

FRANK: Indeed. The "fruit of faith always always happens spontaneously. It requires no spiritual pushups or even "evangelical encouragements (ie Law) such as the beautiful statement " we should act in love in loving response to what Jesus did for us."

Why: Faith is birth in us of a new man with a new will that is again conformed to the will of God. a will conformed to God´s Will simply can ONLY do things that conform to God´s will. Think of how Jesus kept the law here. He didn´t have to think about it. He just did what conformed to God´s Will. We now (important caveat alert!) insofar as we are regenerated, act exactly as christ acted. so the "fruit of sanctification" (which is not sanctificatioon) always MUST happen spontaneously or it is simply NOT fruit of sanctification, it is that other fruit that is also the same identical will of God: "works of the law".

TODD: In other words, I do not always need to know that god is acting for him to act.

FRANK: I have never made this point. I will now make a point of making this point! thanks Todd.

TODD: This does not mean that we "get better" – we are always on our knees in need of grace.

FRANK: In fact, the experience can be guaranteed, according to Paul, to look like a romans chapter 7 experience. we are not necessarily getting "better" or "worse" but we start to see things as being sin that we never saw as sin before. so we probably feel crappier and crappier because we are seeing our sin now without the blinders on. Being "disillusioned " is a good thing, but we never use that word as anything but a bad thing do we?

FRANK: "The only place where the Holy Spirit is required and where free will is utterly useless is in making believers out of unbelievers. Period."

TODD: I think you're probably overstating this a bit.

The fruit of the Spirit is love/joy/peace/etc.

FRANK: Great catch. I deliberately made this an absolute statement, because it is one of those rare ones. and it is an important one.

You are absolutely 100% right I would like to suggest for your consideration Todd, and so am I.

Here is how that is possible:

God works his outward ,visible will, right-eousness in men , the SAME outward righteousness, in two ways. It is key to remember that God´s will/law/right-eousness is unitary. .

In pagans and in the Old Adams that still cling to us christians, he works his will with the carrot and stick of the law. The SAME outward righteousness. This too IS the work of the Holy Spirit. Lutherans call this His "strange" or "foreign" work. Man, using only his fallen free will, a will power, and reason is FULLY able to do all of this.

Those thing you listed, like faith are inner invisible things. they result from the so-feeble-it-is-imperceptable start of fearing loving and trusting in God above all things rather than trusting in other small g gods, and calling upon is name in every trouble rather than taking it in vain. in other words. starting to keep the first table of the law. Only those who are regenerated can do ANY of this. Free Will can do NONE of this. zero. zip. nada. dod I say NOTHING? good.

Why can´t man then do all this and get better and better at it? The will in in bondage to sin. One excellent way to avoid a "felt need" for Christ is to keep the law as well as the Pharisees. And they kept it well because Jesus implied that it could not be done better than they did it.

one more point:

"fruit of the spirit", since it is the exact same working out of the will of God in man, IS fully visible. but… since it DOES look identical, outwardly, to works of the law,wrested from ALL men by force, it is "visibly invisible".

at the SAME time God is wringing outward good works out of me with carrot and stick, the new man is spontaneously doing the SAME outward good works only without any need for practice or instruction. It just happens. only those "fruit of sanctification/faith" works are accompanied AND motivated purely out of love for God and trust in him. and generated out of a will conformed perfectly to God´s will as seen in christ. true love!

so really THOSE works are the ONLY works acceptable completely before God as perfect works. sweet incense to him.

illustration: two men give a million dollars to a church. one does this purely out of faith (which yes i know, the pure part is impossible for even a saint/sinner) and the other is a pagan with no true faith in God. which one has done a truly good work, without the need for quotes around "good"?

cain and abels sacrifices are a picture of this actually.

great comments Todd. Pray for me that I learn to acquire the elegance of brevity that you seem to have been gifted with!

TODDone more point that might be pivital in working through all this because it is THE pivot for me for everything law/gospel, vertical/horizontal etc. as it is for you as well:

Christ Jesus, in his very person, IS the Law that he came to fulfill. The law is just a xerox copy of his very person if you will. He is the perfect revelation of God´s Will for a reason so obvious that it is easy to obscure: Jesus IS God´s Will. Jesus IS Love.

More:

Jesus is both the Law and the Fullfillment of it. How? "He, for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was made man".

This is an important part of the deep, yet fully revealed in Christ, mystery of the Incarnation.

We are wise to remember this to not reduce what we are dealing with to a set of propositions or teachings or things to know.

There is a terrific new translation of many of Tolstoy's later short works The Death of Ivan Ilyich & Other Stories, translated Pevear & Volokhonsky, in which you can find The Forged Coupon. I just read the story this morning and went online to see if anyone had written anything about it and found this wonderful discussion.

Tolstoy’s later works have been very troubling to me. They make me confront myself, my relationship to the world, to others and to Christ. So let me chip in just a bit here.

Todd, you write “I would tacitly support imprisonment for the protection of society, but yes, it is always be better to treat people as beloved.” Do you tacitly support imprisonment, because it is the right/logical/moral thing to do or because Christ calls you to do that?

You also write “I would agree that Tolstoy undermines original sin. For him it seems that if people simple know about the sermon on the mount, then they will act upon it.” Does Tolstoy? I don’t know. What does “know about” it mean? Luther knew about the Bible, but when he read “The just shall live by faith,” he knew like Mariya and Stepan knew. That is grace.

At one point you write to answer a specific question “I do NOT hold Tolstoy's position.” I don’t right now either, mainly because it seems too scary to me, too overwhelming.

Publications

About

WHAT: Mockingbird seeks to connect the Christian faith with the realities of everyday life in fresh and down-to-earth ways.

WHY: Are we called Mockingbird? The name was inspired by the mockingbird’s peculiar gift for mimicking the cries of other birds. In a similar way, we seek to repeat the message we have heard – God’s word of grace and forgiveness.

HOW: Via every medium available! At present this includes (but is not limited to) a daily weblog, weekly podcasts, a quarterly print magazine, semi-annual conferences, and an ongoing publications initiative.

WHO: At present, we employ four full-time staff, David Zahl, Ethan Richardson, Margaret Pope and CJ Green, and four part-time, Sarah Condon, Bryan Jarrell, Luke Roland and Marcy Hooker. They are helped and supported by a large number of contributing volunteers and writers. Our board of directors is chaired by The Rev. Aaron Zimmerman.

WHERE: Our offices are located at Christ Episcopal Church in Charlottesville, VA.

WHEN: Mockingbird was incorporated in June 2007 and is currently in its 11th year of operation.

Online Giving

The work of Mockingbird is made possible by the gifts of private donors and churches. Our fundraising burden for 2018 is roughly $360,000, and with virtually no overhead, your gifts translate directly into mission and ministry. Can you help? Please feel free to email us at info@mbird.com if you have any questions or would like more information.

As a convenience, we are set up to accept online donations via Paypal. This method will allow you to give with a credit card, in any amount you wish. Simply click on the button below and follow the instructions.